STAR WARS: THE LAST JEDI

[moreorless87]

I think The Last Jedi is in a league quite different from the other films I listed for a number of reasons.

Rey being "strong because she is, deal with it" is something I could potentially chalk up to just bad writing in general. Bad scripts are rife with Mary Sues and Gary Stus and I guess soon there will be transgendered Mary Stus that are gifted the ability of being the best at everything just because they're so awesome.

Movie like Aliens, Working Girl and GI Jane are great because they feature not only a strong female protagonist, but a strong female villain. That's something we certainly didn't see in The Last Jedi. And that's setting aside the fact that in those movies, the protagonists actually are strong and overcome things. Demi Moore isn't gifted "being the best soldier just because" by any stretch of the imagination, nor is Melanie Griffith simply the perfect fusion of Steve Jobs and Warren Buffett in Working Girl. They work their way up, step by step, obstacle by obstacle. There are male villains, but they aren't all just cowards, retards or mustache twirling evildoers.

With something like The Terminator, the message is that woman are capable and women are important, and like the above films I listed, that women CAN achieve things. It isn't that women are better than men, that men are toxic, that women make better men than men themselves, that men need to defer to women, or any combination of these. Reese has to save Sarah, and Sarah has to save Reese. Sarah Connor develops her strengths continuously throughout Terminator 1 and Terminator 2. At the end of T1, Reese collapses and is ready to just let the Terminator finish him off, until Sarah pulls him to his feet. It isn't because men are pathetic; it's because everyone is fallible and everyone to needs to lean on somebody sometimes.

Ripley likewise develops her strengths over the course of the first two Alien films.

But what really sets the Last Jedi apart is how a new female character comes in and the existing male heroes are diminished in the service of showing how much better she is. Luke is turned into a pathetic, cowardly, child-mind-raping evil asshole, in order to make Rey better than him. Rian Johnson couldn't or wouldn't write Rey to be strong on her own merits, so he just tore Luke down to say, well at least she's better than THIS asshole. Stop calling her a Mary Sue, she beat your male hero, deal with it.

I don't know what the equivalent scenario would be elsewhere. Ripley and Connor were there from the start in their own franchises. I guess the best example would be if the Neill Blomkamp Alien 2.5 is actually made, and it's a misogynist film where a new MALE hero we've never seen before comes in and makes better decisions than Ripley all the way through, turning her into Gorman from Aliens where she fucks everything up, is a bad leader, lousy under pressure. See how good the new male hero is? We're not going to write him well, but at least he's better than Ripley, so deal with it. Kill the past. Now Alien is for MEN.

But like Star Wars, Alien was never a gender politics statement or battleground. It was just a movie filled with several interesting characters, and in the end the most capable one happened to be Ripley, a woman. Ridley Scott didn't make Tom Skerritt and Yaphet Kotto into pathetic losers to show that Ripley was better. James Cameron didn't make Michael Biehn piss his pants when he saw the Alien. He was strong, so was Lance Henriksen, so was Sigourney Weaver, so was Jenette Goldstein.

If they want Rey to be a strong character, then write her as one. But tearing everyone else down around her just makes her the tallest person in a crowd of toddlers. It doesn't make her tall.

I agree that the Poe/Holdo thing was blatant propaganda, and that the messages in The Last Jedi may have been largely marketing-driven to take advantage of current social trends. I mean, what else is the point of a purple haired admiral? But I think demonstrating that Luke is inferior to the new female hero is part of the film's intended political message, and not simply a more benign weak writing of Rey.

Again I think the issue is that the films you mention actually have depth/balance to there characters and message which makes them less objectionable to you. I mean Aliens for example does clearly highlight the importance of a mother(even if its surrogate) love for her child as a greater source of courage than many of the marines macho arrogance but it doesn't turn Ripley into a superhero and it still has room for characters like Hicks to be competent/brave.

As you point out I think the issue is that these Starwars films take a cheap route, merely showing Rey's competence at the expense of other characters is I think cheaper writing than creating a character of substance. The Last Jedi I find feels very hypocritical in that it pushes the idea of failure but isn't prepared to let its protagonist fail which results in a rather bland climax for me and not much interest leading into the next film.

I mean I do actually think that a "female twist" done well has potential to be interesting, providing a new viewpoint on existing themes but with something like Ghostbusters again it can be a cheap route to take.

 

[minute bull]

You're not a feminist icon until you've been reduced by Itali-rotica artist Milo Manara

So, job done.

What if her last name turned out to be Palpatine?

 

[BisexualMMA]

Those movies all came out before this terrified right wing hysteria about feminist agendas started becoming popular.

If you see a "feminist agenda" in this movie you're delusional.

People like you will read anything into anything to satisfy your weird little fetish with conversations like these. In the first movie a black man got whipped across the back by a white guy with a flaming cross, that same white guy nearly stole his girl in the second movie. I could get deeper and deeper into that nonsense but I won't because I'd be making connections that aren't reasonable.

You are just being a wanker. End of story. Your arguments don't hold any water. The most powerful people in the movie are men. The main battle is between two men. The main conflict in the movie is the conflict between two men. A man (Finn) kills a woman (Captain Phasma) who he escaped from and was able to overcome even though she had a male ally who betrayed him.

I could go on and on with this. But I won't bother. Because arguing with a fool gets a man nowhere.

So I ask you what a movie would have to do, if it could even reach the point, where you would feel it has an agenda, and not only do you not answer the question but you act like an asshole while not doing it.

I also opt not to argue with a fool.

 

[minute bull]

Wait, if you say he's a fool, and he says you're the fool -- then WHO IS FOOL?!?!?

Did Han receive criticism for how he was written in TFA? That he left Leia and the Rebellion to go back to smuggling, and that his inciting motivation was to regain the Falcon? That he cracks some meta-jokes (four of them dedicated to the bow-laser) and jobs for his son? I mean other than the outrage over this:

 

[BisexualMMA]

Wait, if you say he's a fool, and he says you're the fool -- then WHO IS FOOL?!?!?

Did Han receive criticism for how he was written in TFA? That he left Leia and the Rebellion to go back to smuggling, and that his inciting motivation was to regain the Falcon? That he cracks some meta-jokes (four of them dedicated to the bow-laser) and jobs for his son? I mean other than the outrage over this:

The writing of Han Solo was widely criticized in all the ways you mentioned. It just ended up being a small issue compared to the writing in The Last Jedi.

 

[minute bull]

It just ended up being a small issue compared to the writing in The Last Jedi.

Check you out.

The comparison is between portrayals of Luke and Han, and I don't think Han got this level of blowback. You guys weren't putting your lightsabers to your wrists back then.

It's really curious to me because I feel TLJ is markedly superior to TFA in most areas, but mostly because I feel they tread almost comically similar ground.

 

[chickenluver]

You can't possibly be serious...

That was a great movie.

 

[BisexualMMA]

Check you out.

The comparison is between portrayals of Luke and Han, and I don't think Han got this level of blowback. You guys weren't putting your lightsabers to your wrists back then.

It's really curious to me because I feel TLJ is markedly superior to TFA in most areas, but mostly because I feel they tread almost comically similar ground.

Well, it's clear in this thread that you like the film and you're entitled to do so. I don't know why it seems like almost everyone that defends the film does so by insulting people that didn't like it. Just enjoy it, defend the film on its merits if you want to or if you can.

Han didn't get these levels of blowback, but he also wasn't ruined the way Luke was. Stepping back into smuggling and having Rey be better at fixing a problem on the Millennium Falcon is a far cry from the backstory that was created for Luke, the character he was made into, and the way these were portrayed visually.

Lightsabers to our wrists? I'm not even all that fussed about Star Wars in general, but I'm opposed in principle to way this film was written on made on multiple levels.

 

[minute bull]

Well, it's clear in this thread that you like the film and you're entitled to do so. I don't know why it seems like almost everyone that defends the film does so by insulting people that didn't like it. Just enjoy it, defend the film on its merits if you want to or if you can.

Don't "well" me, Sir Wellie of Wellington!

If you look back at who's flinging shit you'll see it's about equal from both sides. Maybe! You don't see fans chiming in with nothing but "THIS MOVIE'S NOT SHIT LOL!" What makes it hard is trying to discern which is just aggressive banter and which is actual vitriol, but either way I can't take it seriously. It is funny when people think banter is all fun and good until they figure out their sense of humor wasn't quite what they thought it was.

I respect everyone's opinion to go down any discussion path on their terms and talk about what went wrong and what could have gone better. Yes, in spirited fashion but nonetheless I'm reading what I'm responding to and replying dutifully. I'm willing to engage banter as its given. It's not my fault they don't want to play their own reindeer games because I seem some type of way about it. Just like it's not my fault they didn't like the film because they harbor all the incorrect ideas.

But it is my fault for trying to interject some semblance of sense, apparently. And it's not because I'm right. I'm not saying I'm right. I am saying that people are afraid to be wrong, and that's my entire frustration: mine is not a matter of judging people.

Han didn't get these levels of blowback, but he also wasn't ruined the way Luke was. Stepping back into smuggling and having Rey be better at fixing a problem on the Millennium Falcon is a far cry from the backstory that was created for Luke, the character he was made into, and the way these were portrayed visually.

Do you concede that Luke jobbing for Rey is very much like Han jobbing for Ren? Can you see the one-to-one comparison between post-OT character arcs?

Lightsabers to our wrists? I'm not even all that fussed about Star Wars in general, but I'm opposed in principle to way this film was written on made on multiple levels.

Your conspiracy makes no sense. No one purposefully half-asses when a multi-billion dollar stake is on the line.

And another thing! Lightsabers to the wrist is obviously hyperbole -- but do you sincerely believe what you're saying? I very much doubt it.


EDIT: I can't seem to let go of this bone.

People have a problem with my terming it as "suicide by lightsaber" yet how many people kick that shit like, "I'll never watch this again!" and "My franchise/characters are roont!" and "Disney has destroyed this forever." I mean, what's that if not killing your inner fan on some made-up bullshit? At least some of you had the wherewithal to acknowledge a lot of it is venting steam, which was clear from the beginning, but this pretense that shit don't stink is giving me the shits that do stink.

 

[James4210]

I love this one.

Thank you, here are some further means I created for peoples mild entertainment

 

[moreorless87]

Check you out.

The comparison is between portrayals of Luke and Han, and I don't think Han got this level of blowback. You guys weren't putting your lightsabers to your wrists back then.

It's really curious to me because I feel TLJ is markedly superior to TFA in most areas, but mostly because I feel they tread almost comically similar ground.

Han certainly got a good deal of criticism at the time but I would say less so than Luke partly because the negative aspects of his portrayal are a little less obvious and partly because he arguably doesn't have as large a role in that film. Force Awakens as a whole also I think benefited from the goodwill of being the first new Star wars in over a decade.

 

[minute bull]

Han certainly got a good deal of criticism at the time but I would say less so than Luke partly because the negative aspects of his portrayal are a little less obvious and partly because he arguably doesn't have as large a role in that film. Force Awakens as a whole also I think benefited from the goodwill of being the first new Star wars in over a decade.

Adroitly couched.

You've discussed the TFA's legacy passed onto TLJ at length already, and I agree with most of it.

 

[Bob Gray]

Wait, if you say he's a fool, and he says you're the fool -- then WHO IS FOOL?!?!?

Did Han receive criticism for how he was written in TFA? That he left Leia and the Rebellion to go back to smuggling, and that his inciting motivation was to regain the Falcon? That he cracks some meta-jokes (four of them dedicated to the bow-laser) and jobs for his son? I mean other than the outrage over this:

I remember him getting some criticism, but admittedly not anywhere near the level of TLJ. At the same time, I think there was enough there to buy that his marriage with Leia deteriorated to the point where they could go longer be together. The death of a child is more often than not followed by the parents of said child divorcing, and losing a kid to the dark side has to be somewhat similar. More than that, they obviously still cared deeply for each other. It's not really a huge leap that under the circumstances Han would go back to what he knew and Leia would do the same.

For Luke, he's doing something not only completely different, but for reasons that are starkly contradictory to how his character has been established. Han and Leia lost a child and their resulting actions arent really hard to accept under the circumstances. Luke did something that seems out of character, and his reaction also seemed out of character.

 

[minute bull]

I remember him getting some criticism, but admittedly not anywhere near the level of TLJ. At the same time, I think there was enough there to buy that his marriage with Leia deteriorated to the point where they could go longer be together. The death of a child is more often than not followed by the parents of said child divorcing, and losing a kid to the dark side has to be somewhat similar. More than that, they obviously still cared deeply for each other. It's not really a huge leap that under the circumstances Han would go back to what he knew and Leia would do the same.

For Luke, he's doing something not only completely different, but for reasons that are starkly contradictory to how his character has been established. Han and Leia lost a child and their resulting actions arent really hard to accept under the circumstances. Luke did something that seems out of character, and his reaction also seemed out of character.

I can't see how you're okay with one but not the other, I mean I see what you're saying but to me it's just as moot the other way around.

Yes, it's conceivable that a father would in distress abandon his family after the loss of a child -- but not Han. Han was a changed man, just like Luke was a Master Jedi, by the Ep6 -- and not just that he would become General Solo or whatever, but because for me STAR WARS is ABOUT something more than its mythos. In which case, Han isn't just a character but represents with Leia the seed of a nuclear family. According to the principles of the franchise, Han should not have gone back to smuggling and cracking jokes. Further, why did he die?

Han died trying to save his son, which hasn't yet and may not be resolved. If there's another reason, it's not coming to me at the moment.

This is why I liked Luke's progression, BECAUSE his failure monumentally destroyed his ego. BECAUSE he wasn't on top of the world. He was back where he started, but not doing the same things. Not thinking the same things. He's older and more grizzled, and he comes through in the end with a purpose. Everything he thought he was, we thought he was, was thrown into introspection and his path, the film's narrative, became ABOUT the Force. His life ABOUT the Force. He died doing something no Jedi has ever done before, and he died to save lives and to kindle hope.


No other film has been about the Force. The Force was used as a backdrop, or explained in non-dramaturgical terms. In TLJ it powers the entire film with its core principles of balance, harmony, and eschewing hubris.

 

[Bob Gray]

I can't see how you're okay with one but not the other, I mean I see what you're saying but to me it's just as moot the other way around.

Yes, it's conceivable that a father would in distress abandon his family after the loss of a child -- but not Han. Han was a changed man, just like Luke was a Master Jedi, by the Ep6 -- and not just that he would become General Solo or whatever, but because for me STAR WARS is ABOUT something more than its mythos. In which case, Han isn't just a character but represents with Leia the seed of a nuclear family. According to the principles of the franchise, Han should not have gone back to smuggling and cracking jokes. Further, why did he die?

Han died trying to save his son, which hasn't yet and may not be resolved. If there's another reason, it's not coming to me at the moment.

This is why I liked Luke's progression, BECAUSE his failure monumentally destroyed his ego. BECAUSE he wasn't on top of the world. He was back where he started, but not doing the same things. Not thinking the same things. He's older and more grizzled, and he comes through in the end with a purpose. Everything he thought he was, we thought he was, was thrown into introspection and his path, the film's narrative, became ABOUT the Force. His life ABOUT the Force. He died doing something no Jedi has ever done before, and he died to save lives and to kindle hope.


No other film has been about the Force. The Force was used as a backdrop, or explained in non-dramaturgical terms. In TLJ it powers the entire film with its core principles of balance, harmony, and eschewing hubris.

Because Han was going back to what he knew, what he had been good at for most of his life. I dunno, it mirrors what Ive seen from people whom I know that experience that kind of tragedy. They tend to regress to something "safe" which has a tendency to be something theyve done previously for a long time, whether its good or bad. It's why some people can have a relapse and go back to drug or alcohol abuse when they lose a child.

Lukes actions are inexplicable all around, and the common argument in their defense seems to be "because it happened".

 

[minute bull]

Because Han was going back to what he knew, what he had been good at for most of his life. I dunno, it mirrors what Ive seen from people whom I know that experience that kind of tragedy. They tend to regress to something "safe" which has a tendency to be something theyve done previously for a long time, whether its good or bad. It's why some people can have a relapse and go back to drug or alcohol abuse when they lose a child.

Lukes actions are inexplicable all around, and the only real argument in their defense that seems to be "because it happened".

My defense is that it's self-doubt that's bothering him. Not that he couldn't save Kylo, and not that he brandished the lightsaber at him -- it was that moment of doubt that sent him spiraling into Beggar's canyon.

It was mirrored in Rey, too, in the same way she couldn't face the notion she'd been abandoned by nobodies.

Luke vs Luke is a perfect crisis. It's a universal truth that your worst enemy is in fact yourself. You don't need to be a parent to sympathize.

Who could defeat Luke Skywalker -- nobody but himself. (Actually, no. Vader defeated him, made him commit suicide and we can get into whether that's honorable or weak.)

 

[CrimsonFan]

Well, it's clear in this thread that you like the film and you're entitled to do so. I don't know why it seems like almost everyone that defends the film does so by insulting people that didn't like it. Just enjoy it, defend the film on its merits if you want to or if you can.

LOL

What in the fuck dude.

What i cant understand, is why you hate the movie so much... Yet here we are on page 100+ and youre still writing paragraphs on every page trashing it.

Yet the people who enjoyed this movie are the problem?

 

[minute bull]

 

[moreorless87]

My defense is that it's self-doubt that's bothering him. Not that he couldn't save Kylo, and not that he brandished the lightsaber at him -- it was that moment of doubt that sent him spiraling into Beggar's canyon.

It was mirrored in Rey, too, in the same way she couldn't face the notion she'd been abandoned by nobodies.

Luke vs Luke is a perfect crisis. It's a universal truth that your worst enemy is in fact yourself. You don't need to be a parent to sympathize.

Who could defeat Luke Skywalker -- nobody but himself. (Actually, no. Vader defeated him, made him commit suicide and we can get into whether that's honorable or weak.)

The finger clicking seemed a little too on the nose for me but otherwise I did like that sequence and indeed a good deal of the Rey/Kylo scenes which I think is really what makes it a frustrating film. Force Awakens for me was simply meh, it was passable entertainment but there was very little there(really only Kylo/Han) that hinted at something more so it was rather hard to suggest improvements. Last Jedi I think has some of the ideas that could have made for a great film yet ultimately misses the mark too often and backs away from them.

 

[moreorless87]

Because Han was going back to what he knew, what he had been good at for most of his life. I dunno, it mirrors what Ive seen from people whom I know that experience that kind of tragedy. They tend to regress to something "safe" which has a tendency to be something theyve done previously for a long time, whether its good or bad. It's why some people can have a relapse and go back to drug or alcohol abuse when they lose a child.

Lukes actions are inexplicable all around, and the common argument in their defense seems to be "because it happened".

Again I think the biggest problem with both Han and Luke is that the films don't really seem certain what there trying to achieve, are they passing the torch to the new characters or carrying on the stories of the old? taking the in-between route to me tends to result in neither having justice done to them.